Viral video déjà vu as taxi driver doesn't wait for child cycling near school; Your N+1 tales — is there one bike to do it all?; Tadej Pogačar — the off-season rapper; How to carry pizza by bike + more on the live blog

I puzzled at that but I think it was because there was a queue ahead and he correctly didn't queue across the junction. And with a small child, best to get the enemy where you can see them

Dave Walker's cartoons are generally excellent for making points about cycling very clearly and simply.

That is very good. 

I think the tweet is to highlight two seperate wrongs, continuing oncoming when could have stopped for a second, and then carrying on forward afterwards onto a school street. I'm not sure he is stating the area it happened was a school street as he does follow it up with an additional tweet with the signage which shows where it starts.  

But when the original example was shared, werent we all of the opinion this is a pretty much daily occurrence for any cyclist on the road?

But we don't know that the cabbie carries on onto the school street, and Greg couldn't have known when he shouted "it's a school street" whether the cabbie was going to carry on into Leahurst Road. Most cars turn right onto Dermody Road when the school street is in operation, unsurprisingly. Please note that I am not speculating - I cycle these streets every day.

For you latter query, he might not have done although he wasn't indicating to state he was turning either. Although all turning up Dermody does is bring you to a dead end unless they have removed the apparent LTN at the top of it. (Shown on street view Sept22 with signs and marking on road stil. Doesn't stop the streetview car of course). 

It does seem that when the school street is active, for an hour the other end of the road is cut off. I'm guessing that is why the two cars suddenly plonked themselves at that area making it more of an hurdle then 5 seconds before. They couldn't work out how to legally get passed the area. 

Going up Dermody is not a dead end, as you can turn off just before the camera-controlled barrier, although it will take you in a big loop as they reversed the one way system on Pascoe Road. It's not the greatest TBH, as during operation the school street cuts off access to the Lee Green LTN from the north. And I say that as someone who doesn't own a car!

My dead-end comment was more that it just turns you back on yourself and doesn't seem to allow access to the area past the school legally. So no use for anyone who would normally use the road when not a school steet, and wanting to get to the same place when it was. 

It would be interesting if making it a school steet also does override the one-wayness of it. In theory it should, but being as they also allow access to residents and other certain vehicles at the same time, who then has "priority"?

Awavey wrote:

Well having used a cycle lane that passed a petrol station without give ways for the cycling part and knowing friends who have been knocked off by drivers entering/exiting the petrol station.

Arguably this is the safer approach, at least it warns you to expect whats going to happen.

We've got one on the Henley Road. First and last time I used that cycle path. I use the road after a woman drove as me as I came from her left as she was pulling forward whilst fixated on her right.

Awavey wrote:

Arguably this is the safer approach, at least it warns you to expect whats going to happen.

No use having any cycling infra there then as you'd be better off on the road.
As always the right answer is "Netherlands".

marmotte27 wrote:

No use having any cycling infra there then as you'd be better off on the road...

Absolutely. The version of the lane with no give-ways places cyclists in more danger because drivers ignore it and cut across it without looking, and the version of the lane with give-ways forces cyclists to stop and get back up to speed multiple times in a short space. In both cases, the easiest/saftest/best option is staying in the main carriageway.

The only thing the local authority has done here is to create conflict, because they've put down unsuitable infra that cyclists aren't going to want to use, and now you're going to have drivers punishing (either verbally or physically) cyclists for riding next to infra that they don't understand either inconveniences the cyclist or puts them in danger.

See also: murder strips narrower than your handlebars that are suicide to ride in, but drivers punish you for riding next to.

What people are missing in the twitter thread on the petrol station/cycle lane crossing is that its not a side road - its an access.  LTN 1/20 doesn't cover this properly when you've got constraints, only side roads. You can't really do anything here to set back or change the access geometry to slow entry (tankers still have to get in) as per LTN 1/20 so its very common that the local authority will have something in place on what to do in this situation to cover this and it'll be along the lines of the frequency per hour of vehicles using the access, likley rate of use of the cycle lane, speed limit of road etc.  It'll be a table that ultimately says no don't continue the cycle lane across the access if its going to be at the expense of 20 cyclists/peds in hospital before any drivers take notice of what the arrangement is.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the design - just pointing out there'll be factors people are unaware of while they're pointing fingers.

Ah - so it really is a case of "but we have driveways" then, not just "UK, stuff it"?

Didn't realise LTN1/20 has missed this.  That's a bit poor.  I know that document is not perfect though.  Even if it wasn't just "guidance" - albeit I think it's now linked to local authorities getting new cycle funding?

Driveways are an example of where you would just continue the cycle lane. its where you fall inbetween.  In the twitter example you could have continued the cycle lane, but only if you could have set it back - private land, not happening - or altered the access to make the turn at crawling pace - prob not happening due to delivery vehicles etc.

LTN is good in a perfect world, but where it falls down is when you;re fitting new infrastructure into an existing environment as it provides little help on how to overcome the problems and constraints.  

Everyhting you post on dutch infrastructure would solve a lot of these problems, the trouble is the hierarchy of proiority is well understood, which takes care of the safety aspect.  Over here, any local authority will be in the dock as soon as something goes wrong as they have a statutory safety responsibility. They can't introduce a layout they think will be unsafe, even if its only at the start of its life.  Changing the highway code was the first step, now it needs enforcing to reinforce the idea as normal. tbh - unless every roundabout gets convereted to 'dutch' overnight and it becomes the norm and not just peicemeal infrastructure, we may as well write off this generation of drivers, and hope the next which will hopefull learn to a better standard and understand how to behave around the more vunerable.  

Don't know the Dutch regs and laws in any detail but I think it's a case of "different philosophy sometimes produces radically different results".  So less "hierarchy of priority" and more there's a different overall goal (e.g. motor vehicle throughput is not the highest priority).  That then leads to different principles and those then guide different approaches (e.g. monofunctional streets, separate infra in many cases, making designs safe by default, self-explanatory and forgiving of human error).

There's an enormous job of retrofitting to do in the UK.  However just as important is to ensure that a) for new development - or even rebuilding - we apply the new standards and b) we don't keep signing off on "things as they were".  That's definitely the case in Edinburgh.  Even as "good for the UK" infra is being built other development which continues to bake in the "old ways" is still being waved through.

On the "getting there from here": it's not just that it's very difficult to change from one "stable state" (e.g. UK car-first status quo) to another.  It also seems we just can't benefit from other places who've already done the work and discovered "what works".  Somehow it seems we can't import more than a couple of new concepts at once.  Or have to "reinvent them" here, often with inferior results.  Possibly how "culture" works - it's evolutionary e.g. change requires a series of small steps, each one has to be "self-sustaining" in some way?

Also - although the Dutch started from a better place than the UK they also had gone down the road of mass automobility (see Rotterdam, Utrecht's inner-city motorway which has now been completely removed etc.).  They also have "narrow streets" and "but we already built it there, there's no space".

So maybe we need to go back to the Dutch archives for inspiration?  Or just look at the "second class" adaptions of Copenhagen or some places in Germany?  Or what even more recent adopters like Seville or Paris (and plenty others) have done?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Don't know the Dutch regs and laws in any detail but I think it's a case of "different philosophy sometimes produces radically different results".  So less "hierarchy of priority" and more there's a different overall goal (e.g. motor vehicle throughput is not the highest priority).  That then leads to different principles and those then guide different approaches (e.g. monofunctional streets, separate infra in many cases, making designs safe by default, self-explanatory and forgiving of human error).

Thats what I was meaning, you put it way more eloquently. Unfortunately, traffic throughput is a prime example of another underlying problem - politics - you change the status quo and create traffic queues over above existing and the first thing that happens is that the locals go to their councillors/mp, who then rail at the LA and then become obstructionate to anything as they want to get re-elected.

Can't disagree with anything else you;ve said there either.

Being a dutch cyclist, cycle to work every day, and bring my kids to school ...by bike
It is not the cycling valhalla you all think it is..
Close passing is common, the cab situation would be seen as normal.
No one would raise a brow on it over here..

Awavey wrote:

Well having used a cycle lane that passed a petrol station without give ways for the cycling part and knowing friends who have been knocked off by drivers entering/exiting the petrol station. Arguably this is the safer approach, at least it warns you to expect whats going to happen.

Safer would be to close the petrol station entirely.

With a give-way sign, it seems to imply that turning drivers have priority which goes against pretty much everything in the Highway Code. It's infrastructure designed to confuse people and make a mockery of active travel.

I'm with marmotte27 here.  However it's true that in the UK we will sometimes have to busk it with what is.  Hopefully not making it a worse dog's dinner than already...

Let's have a look at how this could / ought to be done.  Lots of variations.  Randomly (because hungry) picking Gouda (actually due to the excellent example shown in the post here):

Looking a bit old-fashioned now but still "continuous cycle path".  Not brilliant but there is only one "entrance" as this is effectively on a side street.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0224893,4.6806965,3a,75y,174.69h,67.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ725RX0zxc-DLtk_AYXXOg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Here's how to do it - continous cycle path, good visibility (vehicles crossing cycle track at near 90 degrees):
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0184035,4.7103176,3a,75y,14.98h,75.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxJWXIBxsOSp4-gGjgpf4MA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

In a "quiet area" (not quite sure why you'd have a petrol station here but this maybe reflects Dutch carriageways being only as large as needed?).
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0066884,4.7065409,3a,75y,75.22h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNrOEHKNG0TtJZ2X2leQsMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192